Re: [SystemSafety] Fwd: NYTimes: The Next Accident Awaits

From: SPRIGGS, John J < >
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 10:40:05 +0000

As one of "the grey beards" someone mentioned several posts ago, I first encountered goal-based regulation about 2001, when my Customers' Regulator said they were about to introduce it. Customers had asked for Safety Cases long before that. The argument would be along the lines of "You told us to do this, here is the evidence we did it; we also did this other stuff to address the hazards we identified along the way; therefore we consider it safe enough for the purpose you stated." So should the debate be about whether Regulation should be based on checklists or objectives, rather than whether you need a safety case or some other assurance document?

John Spriggs
Head of System Integrity _at_xxxxxx

If you are not the intended recipient, please notify our Help Desk at Email isproduction_at_xxxxxx immediately. You should not copy or use this email or attachment(s) for any purpose nor disclose their contents to any other person.

NATS computer systems may be monitored and communications carried on them recorded, to secure the effective operation of the system.

Please note that neither NATS nor the sender accepts any responsibility for viruses or any losses caused as a result of viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments.

NATS means NATS (En Route) plc (company number: 4129273), NATS (Services) Ltd (company number 4129270), NATSNAV Ltd (company number: 4164590) or NATS Ltd (company number 3155567) or NATS Holdings Ltd (company number 4138218). All companies are registered in England and their registered office is at 4000 Parkway, Whiteley, Fareham, Hampshire, PO15 7FL.

The System Safety Mailing List
systemsafety_at_xxxxxx Received on Tue Feb 04 2014 - 11:40:21 CET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Jun 04 2019 - 21:17:06 CEST